Latest / The Partial Historians / Special Episode - Gladiator II with Professor Martin Winkler

Transcript

Special Episode - Gladiator II with Professor Martin Winkler · The Partial Historians

• Dr Rad 0:00 Music. Hello, listeners, prepare to be entertained. Sorry. I just can't help myself when we're going to be talking about Gladiator and that is indeed what this special episode is all about. We return with another one of our special installments on GladiatorII, the sequel to the 2000 smash hit where we get some of the old gang back together. There's Lucilla, there's Gracchus, there's Lucius Verus, and we meet some new historical characters like Macrinus, as well as the Emperors Caracalla and Geta. Please make sure you check out our show notes for a plot summary if you haven't seen the film yet. And Be warned, this episode does contain spoilers, and now I think it's time that we get into the arena on with the episode! Welcome to the partial historians. Dr G 1:09 We explore all the details of ancient Rome, Dr Rad 1:14 everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battles wage and when citizens turn against each other. I'm Dr rad, Dr G 1:23 and I'm Dr G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories. Dr Rad 1:34 Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city. You music. Hello and welcome to a special episode of the partial historians. I am one of your hosts, Dr rad, and I'm Dr G, and we are here once again to discuss gladiator two, which is currently taking the world by storm. We are so fortunate to be joined by a true giant in the field of history on film, Martin M Winkler is distinguished university professor and professor of classics at George Mason University in Northern Virginia. His research interests include classical mythology, Roman history, classical literature, the classical tradition and classical literature, history and myth on film. Professor Winkler's list of publications is long indeed, but we will cite a few of our favorites: The Roman Salute: Cinema, History and Ideology, which came out in 2009, Ovid on Screen:, A Montage of Attractions from 2020 and most recently, Classical Antiquity and the Cinematic Imagination in 2024. Professor Winkler has edited and contributed to volumes on the films Troy from 2004 Kubrick's 1960s Spartacus, and importantly for today, Ridley Scott's original Gladiator from the year 2000. We are extremely excited to have one of the world's leading academics in classical reception here to talk about Gladiator II. Welcome, Professor Winkler. Martin Winkler 3:15 Thank you very much, ladies. Dr Rad and Dr G, I should say for your kind invitation. I have never made it to Australia in person, so maybe in this virtual trip, I can at least partly, partially remedy the situation. I also might be allowed, I hope, a personal confession. The cinema and classical antiquity are two of my sort of what greatest lovers, and particularly in conjunction. So any chance I get to talk about them together, I jump at so I'm particularly grateful for you to give me the chance to talk about this new release, Gladiator II, which has not taken me quite by the storm that you mentioned just to remind a go, but that's okay. Dr Rad 4:05 That is okay. That should provide plenty of things for us to Dr G 4:07 talk about. That is some good foreshadowing, I think. So obviously Dr Rad 4:12 we want to draw on your expertise about the first film as well as the second film. So what we found particularly interesting about this new gladiator is that Ridley Scott has teamed up with some of the original cast and crew for this sequel, including production designer Arthur Max, costume designer Janty Yates, with perhaps a bit of help from somebody else for the military costumes, we think this time, as well as producer Douglas Wick, you've already noted in your work on the first film that Scott tries to present us with a Rome that is very lived in, but we also know that Scott and his team, the first time, were very inspired by the paintings from the Victorian era of Rome. What is your reaction to the aesthetic of this sequel? Martin Winkler 4:54 Well, if by aesthetic you mean visual style, I think I am a bit underwhelmed,, if I may say so, by the secret, the first Gladiator, the enormous success that it was, surprisingly worldwide, the first big screen, silver screen, epic, huge epic, center set in antiquity, was obviously also and deservedly quite influential. The new Gladiator, I think gladiator too is a bit of a disappointment. The Connect and this also seen individual style, I think others, and I have pointed out to some of the Victorian background in Victorian also European painting, most famously, Gerome's painting, Police Verso, the thumbs up, thumbs down, seen in the Coliseum with a gladiator, over raising a sword, over falling gladiator and so on that. I think was perhaps the direct inspiration for Scott to take on this project, as you said at the time when he was thrown this in between. So yeah, I'm not quoting verbatim. He said something like, Yes, I can make that kind of movie. I noticed some of these pictorial backgrounds or influences in Gladiator II, also less so perhaps Gerome, than the British Dutch painter. One of my favorites, actually Lawrence Alma Tadema that influence, I think, could be seen in certain scenes here and there. On the other hand, the Greeks and Romans indemus paintings usually are appear in very sunny, beautiful, pleasant, relaxing, vacation type, almost surroundings, and there's very little of that in Gladiator II. That's also true for gladiator one, the first gladiator which presented a sort of dark, bloody kind of image of Rome. I'll say a quick word about the Coliseum in just a moment. But before I do so, let me add that the lived in quality that I think actually was very strongly there and to be seen in the first gladiator brought the computer generated images, the animation to life. I meant that, particularly at that time, I do not I meant it particularly because these days 3d or other sort of computer animations of Roman architecture or other historical periods in architecture take very great pains to show you as accurately as possible the buildings, The streets, the sculpture architecture, what have you. But usually it's kind of a dead city or dead environment. There's hardly anybody around and in the cyber room, as I might call it, particularly the first Gladiator. That was not the case. Yeah, that really was a kind of lived in sort of environment. And one of its strongest visual science in this regard, I think, was the Coliseum, which was the main place of action, the main what place of spectacle in that film. And the coliseums had at that time, was built, I think, up to one or two stories, and everything else was computer generated imagery. But the low views, low angle views of the Coliseum on the one hand, and the very spectacular flyover, as it's usually called, on the other hand, I think, very successfully conveyed the impression of what an amazing building this was, notwithstanding all the death and destruction and bloodshed and animal slaughter that was going on, or would be going on, as simply as an architectural marvel. I think the first gladiator put that point across very, very effectively and impressively too. Remember also the year, another famous moment when Maximus and the other Gladiators, for the first time, enter the arena through this dark tunnel and then are in the year on the sand in the arena, and look around and you have sort of, if not 300 Yeah, I think it's actually 360 degrees, sort of panoramic shot. Yeah, they're looking up, and it's, it really is a kind of big wow effect. I'm saying this because, and this leads on to the fact that I was underwhelmed, as I said earlier about the sequel the Coliseum in Gladiator two, which, of course, again, is a major site for action spectacle near plot development. And such looks by comparison. May I be totally frank, it looks almost puny. I was very, very disappointed the power of the images that the first gladiator had in this regard, and then others do, for that matter, I think was largely, largely an angle, and I think that's symptomatic, perhaps, for the film as a whole. Not to mince any words, I was a bit disappointed. It's a common tourism that sequels to earlier films are usually books. Sometimes too are inferior. That's usually true, although there are exceptions. But later too, I don't think is an exception. It's by no means boring or poorly put together anything like that. Scott is a far too good director for that, and the whole thing, of course, is far too expensive to do for anybody to get away with a sloppy job. But it's, I think. Think a somewhat perfunctory, pale rehash of the plot with some new characters and with connections back to the risk of the plot of gladiator Dr G 10:10 Yeah, no, I think that what you're saying is like there's a parallel of smallness of what we see on the screen with gladiator two, in some respects, to the smallness of the story that comes across, yes, Martin Winkler 10:21 yes, I think that's that's true. Because, for one thing, the story, the plot in later two is pretty much predictable. It is painfully predictable, if I may say so, for anybody who remembers later to one. Now, many people these days in 2024 may not be up on recent viewings of later one, as probably you two are, and as I am, yeah, I've watched gradator on, I don't know how many times by now, I recently revisited it too. That I think, is another kind of well, as I said, it's sort of a rehash. Almost since the originator came out in 2000 there had been talks, had been talk or questions about, will there be a remake? It was difficult to do that because the year or Maximus is dead at the end. So how can you do this? So it took her. It took a long time for that remake to come out, but I don't think Scott or anybody else did their own reputation much of a favor. I believe actually, Russell Crowe said something to that effect some of the plot developments. And I don't know if I'm allowed to give spoilers, say spoilers, or give anything away. Well, the big revelation that the hero then turns out to be, well, it's not that big of a revelation that it turns out to be the son of Lucilla, but the super revelation is that he now is also the son of Maximus. And that flies in the face of everything that near the first later film and Lucilla and Maximus and there, to a large extent, actually quite intriguing backstory of as lovers and then being separated and all coming back together in order to battle Commodus, the evil Emperor. This is a pale rehash in glator two of that constellation. And that's, I think that's a disappointment, you know, I think both the audience and perhaps if I may say so also, even Lucilla, as a character of Lucilla in Gladiator II, deserved a lot better than that. And I Dr G 12:18 would definitely agree with that. And I think this leads really nicely into thinking about some of the parallels that we see between Maximus as the protagonist of the original film and Lucius as kind of this heir to Maximus, as is revealed in Gladiator two. I think this is one of the moments where, when Dr Rad and I left the cinema, that was one of the things where we're like, Oh no, that's that's what they decided to do. They decided to make Lucius the son of Lucilla and Maximus, when that intriguing connection that they did have offered a hint of that possibility. But you think to yourself, within the terms of Imperial politics, it would be very unlikely that such a child would be raised as he was in the Imperial Household. So I'm interested in your thoughts on the characters of Maximus and Lucius as they compare as separate examples of the heroic in each of these films. Martin Winkler 13:14 Well, that is practically no contest. I think Russell Crowe wins. Wins this one very easily, either hands down. He'll be thrilled to hear that, either hands down or thumbs up, whichever way you want to put this, as you remember, Gladiator in 2000 or actually in 2001 won the Oscar for Best Picture, and Crow won for best best actor. I don't think there is any danger of that sort of thing being repeated this time around, although, of course, I'm not a prophet. I may word be wrong. Crow really had a major presence in the film, as he did also in many of his earlier films, particularly with also which are not that well known in the US, those he made in in Australia, his native country, the actor who plays solutions is, I'm not saying by any chance that he is bad. Paul masculin is a good actor, but his character is so underwritten and so thin in terms of characterization, because he's basically the sort of a warming up of Maximus, of an inferior Maximus, I should say, or mini Maximus. Dr G 14:20 I think, I think you should say that. Martin Winkler 14:23 Sorry, but I think that's, that's what it is. In addition to that, there's also very little psychological conviction to this. The boy Lucius that he turns out to be, grew up with his mother, as we saw in in the original Gladiator. It's hardly likely that when he comes back to Rome as an adult, he does not recognize her or repudiates her, as he does in the film and that sort of thing for that, the boy, I think was, was far too old. So that's not, that's not, at least, to me, it was not convincing. The very fact that he repudiates Lucilla when he's in the prison is an echo. Of, I think, a very powerful scene in the first Gladiator, when Lucilla visits Maximus imprisoned. You know, the scene then culminates, then in the famous, I think of the bottom line, you know, the lady has finished with me. And it's, it's a subdued, I think, erotically, quite, yeah, with an erotic undercurrent, you know, the former levels reunited and such, at least momentarily. The very fact that in Gladiator II, the rehash of that scene, if I may say so, Lucius actually yells at her. At Lucilla shows you that the strong connection emotional, intellectual, if you like, also connection between the two lovers, now, between mother and son is is very weak. If you can't get something across, be loud and noisy, then an audience won't notice. That's unfortunately sort of the general maxim these days. Dr Rad 15:50 Yeah, I must admit, I agree with you that I think when I was reflecting on the film Lucius was probably one of the biggest disappointments, and it it wasn't something I thought about very much, because I guess our attention is so much on working Phoenix and Russell Crowe and those sorts of characters in the first one, but the child who played Lucius actually did a fantastic job in the first movie. I thought in terms of acting like an imperial Prince and the way that he interacted with Maximus and, yeah, to have him turn out to be like this? And I, as you say, I don't think it's necessarily the actor's fault. I think it's definitely he was trying to do the most he could with a bad script for his Martin Winkler 16:33 largely underwritten, underwritten character, because he just goes, he's put the script puts him, and there's the direction also, they put him through the motions. You know, yet you're here now, and you have to go to this, this, this, and this and this, in order to end up at certain subject. The one exception to this I would like to add, after all my negative comments, is the plot development, which, in retrospect, is quite predictable, but at least it took me by a surprise, is to have father and I'm sorry, stepfather and son or step father and stepson, then meeting in the arena and Jewel it out now if that had actually happened, and if the one, if one of them had defeated the other one, rather than a case, the husband of Lucilla being shot by an by hail of arrows that could have actually made from intense climax. Because whichever way this goes, does Acacius skip loses or defeat, loses at least, or does lose defeat acacia and then an appeal to the crowd, thumbs up, thumbs down. That could have made for, I think, quite an exciting ending. Spectacle. Ending this way it's, it's almost like a cop out. The characters are not pushed to the extreme that in that epic heroes, or particularly tragic heroes, often do get pushed to. So the final duel, you know, the sort of big climax. Then this postponed, and it's a duel between Lucius and Macrinus, whose name, unfortunately, is pronounced macronus In the film, and that's a disappointing view, too. After two and a half hours, almost two and a half hours, you deserve a bigger climax, a bigger action climax and Gladiator. One firm essay called it that delivered, because you had Crow and Joaquin Phoenix, who was a really, really, really great villain. So you have the great hero and the great villain facing off, and the fact that Maximus then dies, yeah, he kills the bad guy has this to be expected, but then dies himself adds greater potency to this. And then when Lucilla says he was a hero of Rome, as is repeated in later it has a resonance in later II. It virtually does it because there's, there's nothing to resonate, I dare say, Dr Rad 18:43 yeah, the way that that final duel ends with Lucius surviving again, it's kind of like another slight disappointment. He Martin Winkler 18:50 survives and he gives a speech to the soldiers, I dare say, also the the audience, and the whole thing ends on talk. And talk is not an action. It's not to be recommended a lot of films not to be recommended, to come in action films, no, Dr Rad 19:04 if the way that the film plays out, the way that the action is paced, it is a bit off, given that they're obviously trying to mimic so much of the first gladiator they missed some of those key things that made the first gladiator so good. So gladiator two takes us back to Ridley Scott's vision of ancient Rome, and it's obviously a generation ahead of where the first film ended. So we've skipped all the way over Septimius Severus rise to power. He's not mentioned, really, and we're in this situation where Septimius Severus has died and his sons are co Emperors of Rome. There's obviously an argument to be made for the convenience of that with the 24 years between the first gladiator and then gladiator two. But there's obviously a lot of challenges with getting the same actors who were in the first film to play the same parts in this particular movie. But there also might be a narrative reason for Scott to have chosen. To set the film in this particular time period. What do you think are some of the advantages of leaning into this co-emperorship between Caracalla and Geta? Martin Winkler 20:09 Well, the chronology, let me say quick word about that. First, if you don't mind the chronology, the condensation or telescoping, if you might say so of chronology is not a surprise in Gladiator, the first Gladiator, Commodus, gets his from Maximus pretty soon after he takes power. The real Commodus route from 180 to 192 that's 12 years. So why if he was this bad, sort of a creepy psychopath and psychotic or whatever else, how could he have lasted for that long? So he doesn't, and that's that's perfectly okay in a dramatic conversation of a story. In let me just mention a couple of other examples from earlier epic cinema, if you don't mind, in the big 1951 MGM spectacular Quo Vadis is Nero dies with the help of his former concubine or lover, acti shortly after the fire of Rome, but he ruled, which was in 64 ad but he ruled and died and was overthrown only in 68 so what happened in between that's inconvenient for the condensed narrative there to feel like that presents. So it gets swept under these total carpet, which is perfectly okay, because epic storytelling and cinema and such, all novels for that matter, are not history lessons. The death of Commodus shortly after his accession in Gladiator is actually apparent on the earlier film from 1964 the fall of the Roman Empire, which was usually not acknowledged as the model for Gladiator when Gladiator, it came out in 2000 which made me somewhere between SAD and MAD at that time, because film may make a personal confession, the fall of the emperor is my number one favorite Roman film. And they are also the duel, the public duel between the analogy of the returning hero and earlier friend of the Emperor the man called Livius. They duelled it out on the in the Roman Forum, not in the Coliseum. But that also happens shortly after comet, or, comparatively, shortly after Commodus takes power. So leaving out all kinds of episodes or even rains of emperors inside the story is not a problem. The question is, Does having two villains instead of one an added advantage, sort of two for the price of one, or is it the opposite effect? I think it's the opposite. And I'm not saying this because I just want to be contrarian about a contrarian about her gladiator two, or Scott, or anything like that. Far from it. For one thing, the part the screen time that the two emperors, or the actual supervisor Tempus have is not that extensive, so they never really have a chance to show their villainy. That also is far more superficial than it need be in the first Gladiator, it was significantly different and far, far more effective, particularly the creep you seen between Commodus and Lucilla on the bed, which is almost leads almost to incestuous seduction, and then later when he loses in the story of Emperor Claudius and the busy bee. These are very, very well written and also very powerful and visually beautifully staged and edited scenes. Caracalla and Geta have nothing to show for themselves. In that regard, there's one obvious instance of sheer madness which is also very silly, and that's the monkey becoming a concert, which seems to be sorry, which seems to be parent on Caligula making his horse in kitata concert. So it's a pale rehash of that. But for the first time I saw the first time I saw the Emperor Geta, I was wondering whether he had not walked in from a zombie movie. The sort of pale, bloodless, I'm sorry to say this so bluntly to me, excuse me, you know this bloodless face, and then the sort of eye makeup, the pale eyes, yeah, highly emphasized eyes. That's something that was effective. I don't think it is. It is effective in 2024 unless it's a zombie movie. But that was very, very effective in the sonnet era, when emphasis on the eyes, particularly in the absence of speech, except for brief movements of intertalks and such, the expression laws of actors had to become, had to go through, mainly through their faces, if that could be helped by the eye makeup and sort of the circles above and around and below the eyes, so that the eyes sort of look received recessed or dark and such. That could be very, very effective. And that was the case not only for actresses playing, you know, the female parts, but also for actors quite often. And at that time, I think that really worked nowadays Well, am I the only one to have thought of zombies in this regard, if that's the case, and if the listeners disagree, I stand corrected. No, Dr G 24:49 I think, I think it's a great observation, but it does put me in mind of like, what would lead a creative team to make the decision to embody getter in. That particular way, and I think about the way that the Colosseum is supposed to be really big, even if it doesn't quite have the overwhelming effect that we want it to have in this film. But it might be something that would be useful for an emperor to illustrate and draw attention to their expressiveness, for a crowd that might be really far away from where they're sitting. Now, it doesn't really gel very nicely with what we know about Ancient Rome and the way they thought about cosmetics and used them, necessarily, but I can see how they might have made a creative cinematic leap to how do you get an emperor to express themselves on a really big stage in a way that's quite unique and visually striking, and that might be part that Martin Winkler 25:43 may well be true. I agree with you in this regard. On the other hand, I don't think that invalidates the weakness of the character as such. Again, contrast to work in Phoenix, he didn't have to resort to that sort of thing. He had the power as an actor in protecting that power. Yes, he was dressed in sort of very fancy robes, also invented completely by the Oscar winning costume designer. But that's another story. He didn't have to resort to, as I said, resort to that kind of crutch, if I may say so. It's particularly sad because Caracalla, and this is an advantage of moving the story on, onto the the early third century, our Caracalla to Edward Gibbon in the history of the decline for the Roman Empire. Empire was one of the evil, bad Roman emperors who brought about, or did a major, but major contribution, in a negative sense, to propelling Rome to the Decline and Fall, invasion of barbarians and whatever else. And that, in a manner speaking, here is a completely missed opportunity. So instead of having one great hero and one great villain, you have two heroes, or let's say one and a half, Lucius and Aacius, because Acacius doesn't get that much screen time either. And you have two villains who don't, in combination, barely measure up to one really memorable villain. And if you're not convinced, think back I mentioned earlier, follow from the Empire and providers. Think back on Peter Ustinov as one of the most memorable screen dealers of all time, if not the number one, most memorable one, who could pull all that off by himself. And Ustinov also was nominated for an Academy Award. I think he should have had it. Or think back on the earlier comment displayed by Christopher Plummer in the fall of Roman Empire, a suave villain in an almost may I say this in an almost sub Laurence Olivier way. If you think back on Olivier in Kubrick's and Spartacus, these are really, really great villains, the two emperors here. Well, even if they had been one, or they had been combined into one, they could not hold up a chalice to the other great villains to drink the toast to, or something like Dr G 27:53 that. And it seems a real missed opportunity, because the story of Caracalla and Geta historically is incredibly fascinating and full of tension, and because we seem to be missing a lot of the backstory that they could have lent into it, does a real disservice to these two as villains, because there is a lot to delve into in terms of what's going Martin Winkler 28:15 to there would be another sort of dysfunctional dynasty in Rome or something like that. On the other hand, not to say nothing but negative things here, on the one hand, on the other hand, I'm very happy to see that Geta and Caracalla finally made it onto the big screen, because I'm not aware maybe you are. I'm not aware that they've ever been a part of a historical epic, not in not on television and not in the cinema. If anybody knows of of a film or a TV show or whatever. Please, let me know. Put Dr G 28:43 the call out to our listeners. Dr Rad 28:45 Get researching guys. Okay, yeah, I must admit we were. We were also similarly, a bit disappointed with the way that they were portrayed and seemingly the fact that they overlooked their heritage as well, in the in the way that they cast them, and then also made them up. It just didn't there was just so much they could have done with that, which would have been so interesting, particularly with Denzel Washington being a major character in this film. And it just was just passed over so completely. It was, yeah, a bit of a disappointment. Martin Winkler 29:19 You just made a good point. I hadn't thought about this. But what if you re imagine this and push the story back a little further in time during the rule of Macrinus, although he was in power only for two months, but we already saw that telescoping history was not a problem. Would that not have been much better and more effective to have a great actor be the anti, the bad force, the bad power, the villain against a great hero. Could that not have worked? Because watching nothing really, would have pulled off being a villain with great ease, and it would have been, I think, very convincing. Then, Dr G 29:58 yeah, and I think. A way he kind of steals the show from a villain perspective as well, because he does seem to be a more well fleshed out character in terms of the dialog that he gets to express, but also the way he has gone about delivering that character on screen as well has produced a Macrinus that is really interesting. And you can feel that this is somebody who is not just pushing towards power, but has the capacity to take it when the opportunity arises. I think that's Martin Winkler 30:28 completely on target. I agree entirely. That's very true. And that's sort of an indication that his character was underwritten and he was underused. Yeah, Dr Rad 30:37 I kind of feel that that's exactly what we kind of dancing around here the fact that the people who are meant to be the main heroes and villains in this film, so Lucius and then Caracalla and getter are not really given enough to do in the script to fulfill those roles. And really the General and Macrinus are the ones that are more interesting. The acting, I think, just comes across better somehow. And I feel like I wanted to know more about those characters, and they just didn't get the screen time. Martin Winkler 31:09 You're right again. But I said earlier two villains for the price of one, I should have said to three, because the third villain really should have been the real villain. He overshadows Washington really overshadows the other two. And that shows their punniness as characters, not as emperors in history and such. I'm not saying that, but as dramatic characters here, they sort of almost fade into into the background. And the very fact that Macrinus kills Geta shows you that this is not really, yeah, it's not the hero who kills the villain. It's a villain who should be the real villain, killing a minor villain, and so on. So there are various perspectives. That's it. It's an example of the road and not taken, or various roles not taken in the screenplay. Yeah, the story could have been far more powerful, and I think in that sense, worthy, or worthy, or at least of the origin, than it turns out to be. I Dr G 31:59 definitely agree with that? Dr Rad 32:01 Yeah, definitely. Now, there is a particularly striking scene in the sequel where Lucilla and her husband, the Roman General Acacius, secretly meet with key members of the Senate with a view to taking down Caracalla and Geta and the Senator Gracchus, played by the great Derek Jacobi, who was in the first film, take the lead by suggesting that instead of returning Rome to the Senate and the people that Lucilla would be the appropriate person to raise into power, this position is later at odds with Lucius dream to restore the Roman Republic. So what might we learn here about the reception of Rome on screen. Well, Martin Winkler 32:43 let me take on the part of a podcast villain, maybe one more time, and answer your question, what do we learn here? My direct answer would be, not very much. That's because what Lucius? When Lucius talks about the Republican such, he just channeled his Maximus. That's just a repeat of repetition of what was far more powerful and far stronger in in Gladiator, the first Gladiator, the fact that the senator Gracchus, who represented in the first Gladiator, represented, to, you know, the traditional senatorial quote, unquote, good government of Rome. That goes back to Senator Gregor, played by Charles Lawton in Kubrick's ospartakers, who really was sort of the last Republican one. I'd say in that film, the return of the imperial government to the Senate, actually, during the Empire, was not entire, an entire anachronism, because this was being discussed, I think I pointed this out in the book and Gladiator in one of my chapters. This was actually discussed after the assassination of Claudius. It didn't go anywhere, but at least there was people were talking about this, you know. And there was sort of, perhaps a hankering to the good old days of the Republic, except that the fall of the Republic was anything, but any good or days. But that's another story. So we, I don't think we learned a lot about this here. That's another disappointment, because the gladiator two was filmed, I think, earlier this year, and edited. It filmed in something like no more than two months or such. So this was a very rapid, surprisingly quick production. At that time, the entire modern history of research and autocrats target and some Putin and Trump, to mention only the most prominent ones. This is something that sort of cried out to be incorporated as a modern analogy. But there is nothing like that in the film, and everything is another big missed, missed opportunity. Allow me briefly to point to a film we haven't mentioned yet, we haven't yet mentioned here. And this is about comparisons film Troy from 2004 which was produced here, about the chosen war and so on, and was produced during the time that the Iraq war was. Going on, and Peterson in an interview, or actually, probably more than on one occasion, said it's kind of strange. I'm just paraphrasing this. I'm not quoting verbatim. He said something like the following. It's strange when you come back from a day of shooting out on the location and editing whatever else to your hotel room, and you turn on the television and the same story is on the news. So Peterson was clearly aware of the not just chosen war, but also modern connection of this Homeric epic, the chosen one bed in the myth and the contemporary political situation. But there's virtually nothing like that in in Gladiator II. Dr G 35:38 This is a real missed opportunity, isn't it? And I think one of the ways that we could potentially consider this is through the lens of the Senate itself, because the Senate is kind of some of them are revolutionary. Some of them are looking to depose Caracella and Geta. But more often, we see them in moments of hesitation. They're failing to act when they have opportunities, and they don't seem to be powerful within any particular structures in which they operate. There is a sick of phantism that is going on for them. And my first question about this was really related to like, how does that sort of match up to what we might know about the Roman Senate in this period of Rome's history, but it might also be the case that it helps us think about what's going on with politics today, and maybe the weakness that we see in this group is maybe a reflection of some of the frustrations people have with what appears to be the weakness of government structures In the here and now. Oh, that's a Martin Winkler 36:41 nice point, yes, and that's something that I think deserves more thought, certainly on my part, and perhaps on some of the our heroes parts too. The sycophantism, as you rightly call it, of the Senate in later two is very striking. And I think that actually does have whether intention or not does not matter a modern analogy, and that is the sequence of all the Republicans, including those who were against Donald Trump in 2016 because famously, those who were called the never Trumpers all became Trumpers. I doubt if there was a single or maybe one or two exceptions mid Romney, for instance, when it comes to mind. So that's that's very much the case. On the other hand, there's also a a Roman analogy to this. As you probably noticed, there is a quotation from Tacitus in in Gladiator two, not verbatim, but it takes up the famous saying, uh, by car atacas, they make a desert and call it peace. So this the image of the Senator, I think also has a strong tacitian analogy or echo, because Tacitus is a very, very anti Imperial historian. I think that's safe to say. And he wrote from his own experience. So yeah, having been a concert, a concert subject, I believe, actually himself, I was reminded very strongly of one of the most famous sort of sententia sentences in Tacitus, which is also one of my favorites upon the accession of Tiberius after the death of Augustus, when he says in Rome, everybody rushed headlong into slavery, concerts, senators and the Knights. So this abject secrecy is clearly an indication that in the empire you really have, well, you still have the Seminoles of the Republic. The Republic has not been formally abolished. You still have a Senate. You have people's assemblies and whatever else but the Empire, the Emperor calls the shots, and the Senate is basically kind of a rubber stamping body of executives, with some exceptions and sometimes you do have good consults and what have you. In addition to that, this scene, particularly when Caracalla decrees his monkey to be or quotes for the vote for his monkey to be called declared Council. I think there's a more direct analogy to this, rather than tassien. One of that is to be found in the 1964 the fall of the woman empire. There's the scene in the Roman Senate in which Commodus sitting on his throne beneath the lupa Romana, the Roman wolf with these babies, Romulus and Remus and so on, one of his henchmen and sycophants proposes a motion that, or rather, asks Commodus for the permission that the city of Rome be renamed the city of Commodus the office commodiana in them as in fact, there was some talk about that back at that time. And this, this is great moment in which Christopher Plummer really rises to the occasion. You know, he sort of rubs his fingernails against his costume, looks at it in contemplation and and then says, I allow it, or I permit it in such a very condescending way. And everybody breaks out into great. Of applause and cheering and so on and so on and so on so this abject bootlegging. Or, you know, you know what, kissing, I won't even say it there. Dr G 40:12 It is permitted to say such things on this we've said worse. Dr Rad 40:15 Thank you. Martin Winkler 40:16 So there, in that sense, one might say later too, fits very well into this sort of anti Roman, bad Roman history kind of archetype that goes back to the silent era. Yeah, Dr Rad 40:27 it's very interesting. I love to actually do a more comprehensive study of the influence of the Tacitus vibes on Roman film, because I feel like even when it's not about a period that Tacitus wrote about, Tacitus still really has an influence over the way that directors and screenwriters sort of conceive of Rome under the emperors. That that's Martin Winkler 40:47 actually a nice point. That's something one should pursue further. Tacitus are sort of the presiding ghost, the eminence grise over over Hollywood's history. I think he would have Dr Rad 41:01 liked to know he had such an influence. Pleased him greatly. So thinking very much about power and how it plays out in this film, you know, we've talked about, obviously, the villains, the heroes, we talked about the Senate. But in the first film, I think we had quite a strong presence from the Praetorian Guard in particular, and the army were also quite important to the plot in the first film. What is your opinion of the way that the Praetorians and the army come across in this sequel, again, Martin Winkler 41:30 by comparison with the original, the sequel suffers significantly. The good point that the film makes, as did the first one, I think too, is that the Praetorians are pretty much the Emperor's personal army, which they were in history. Also, in that sense, they were kind of a counterweight, if you like, to the regular army. And for that, there is a very strong, at least one very strong modern analogy, and that is in Nazi Germany, yeah, the SS, or first the SA and SS, and then only the essay or the SS, sorry, the portrait of the Praetorians in the original gladiator actually brought this out quite obviously, the black uniforms, the drumming and everything. In fact, if I may, point to a contribution to the gladiator book that I edited some years ago, there's a contribution by Arthur Pomeroy, called the vision of a Fascist Roman Gladiator, in which he follows through some of the iconography, not just the pretorians, but also the triumphal scene when Commodus enters home with the Coliseum in the background and what have you. So that's, I think that's a strong point in the original Gladiator here. The point is still there, but it's barely brought up. It's sort of de emphasized, if it's there at all. So in that sense, also, it's not nothing. Then the rehash, really, of the original. Dr Rad 42:52 I did wonder whether he'd actually read your book Martin Winkler 42:57 and been like, oh, I would be flattered, but I doubt it's very strong. Dr Rad 43:03 I noticed the same thing. I thought the way that the Praetorians were costumed and just the general way that they were so much in the background in this film, even though they were still playing a significant role at times, it was just such a pale limitation of the first movie, and they were so de emphasized, I was like, oh my god, did he notice that? We all noticed nacino returns from that first movie I Martin Winkler 43:27 saw somewhere. It may have been on the IMDB that there is a much longer cut of gladiator two, which runs to well over three hours, or three and a half hours, or something like that. I believe 220 minutes that might, presumably that will end up on home video at some point to make more money. So we should perhaps withhold final judgment on related to two until, if it ever shows up, until that and we can see that that footage, I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not expecting a great improvement, but at least some improvement in that regard. So it made us be that this is a bit of a sort of too much of a cutting down to get the film out into release before Christmas, or something like that. Dr Rad 44:10 Yeah, I think Napoleon definitely suffered from trying to pack too much into the time that was allowed for the release, because even though it was beautiful, it was just such a was very, just such a pared down version of Napoleon's life. Martin Winkler 44:30 Yes, yes, yeah. Good point too. Dr G 44:32 So thinking about things that may potentially be disappointing, we do get a great reference to John Dryden's translation of part of Virgil's Aeneid from book six, the gates of hell are open night and day, smooth the descent and easy as the way, but to return and view the cheerful skies in this the task and mighty labor lies Now this seems like they're. Trying to draw a parallel between Lucius journey in this film and the idea of the katabasis and going through that descent, potentially to the underworld, and returning back from it. Do you think this might be justified for Lucius' journey in the film? Martin Winkler 45:19 Perhaps less so in a mythical Greek katabasis sense, than in a dramatic plot development sense. There is a brief moment early on when Lucius ends up in the water and sees care under the ferryman and such. You know when his wife has been killed and so on. And I understand that in an earlier screenplay written by the musician Dick cave, there would would have been a much longer underworld sequence. Who knows? Maybe that's in the long version that we don't see, at least not yet. So that's a possibility. At the same time, this kind of thing is an effective plot development or plot device. It's basically a story pattern. It's not so much the rise and fall of a bad guy, you know, like Nero or something like that, but rather the fall and rise in terms of both Lucius and also Maximus in the two gladiator defense. So you have Maximus as a general farmer who becomes a general close associate, friend, soul mate, almost of the Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. He comes into line for power, becoming Emperor himself. Then he has a reversal of fortune, a very bad one. He becomes a slave and a gladiator, and then he comes back as the Avenger. He kills the bad guy, the Emperor. And although he dies, had he not died, he might have been programmed emperor, but at least he saves from the Gladiator. One perspective, he saves Rome from the tyrant. And now Senator Gracchus and the other senators, if they get to act together, can perhaps try to return Rome to the central government that Marcus Aurelius, and historically also had envisioned in Gladiator II. It's very similar. The young prince gets saved, hustled away from Rome to Africa, where he is more of a commoner, but becomes prominent in his community, sort of military leader and so on. He's defeated. He becomes a slave Gladiator, yes, as with the Maximus. And then he comes back and reasserts himself, and he survives, and he proclaims that the times of tyranny and so on are over. All of that has yet another, has yet another, very strong earlier parallel in the story of Ben Hur who starts out as a rich and powerful Prince of her as is called in the William Wyler, 1959 film, with the Roman as his friend. They become bitter enemies. He also has to fall into tragedy, fall from grace. He becomes an abject slave, galley slave, as it were, although let me just add this in parenthesis. The people who wrote the Roman military galleys were not slaves, but Marines, David soldiers, if you like. So he survives by the grace of God, literally, in this case, Jesus, and he comes back and avenge us himself. So it's this, this basic arc from falling from the heights into abject misery and then coming back. And that's a very, very clever Well, it's primitive, like simple or simplistic, but it's a very clever plot device. It's also so much adaptable that you can put, put this template, if you like, or over practically any story, any kind of heroic story. And heroes always have their setbacks, and then come, yeah, come back more gloriously. And so you see candidates at this weekly you see this. This is basically shape in fight scenes, boxing scenes and whatever in the cinema, the one who gets most punishment first almost always wins. That's the basic story, and that has an ancient rhetorical or historiographical slash rhetorical parallel when in debates, whoever you hear, whoever speaks first, practically never wins. The one who wins the debate is the one who speaks last, because otherwise it will be very under magic, let down and enter a climax. You know? Why? Why do we report the speech of somebody who doesn't win at the end? Dr Rad 49:03 That actually such an interesting point. I hadn't thought about that potential. Parallel with Ben Hur and that actually leads me to a question which I feel only you could really answer, which is Ridley Scott, obviously, is an older director at this point in his career, and he's directed many smash hit movies, and he had a background where he grew up, obviously, when these films that like Quo Vadis and Spartacus and Ben Hur were actually out in the cinema for the first time, and you have actually noticed in your work, the influence of his previous experience watching epics as a child, and also his background in making TV commercials had on the earlier film, particularly, I think, from Fall of the Roman Empire, Spartacus, and even with those potential Nazi influences, with Triumph of the Will and the way that it was shot, I was wondering, apart from Ben Hur, were there any other cinematic traditions that you noticed in Gladiator two that might have been in. Influencing the way it came together, not specifically. Martin Winkler 50:04 I don't think it's yet another installment, or episode, if you like, in the usually negative portrayal of the Romans that has been the case from day one or even day one in the history of cinema, or even before day one in the history of novels. Think back on The Last Days Pompeii, Quo Vadis, Fabiola. It's usually evil pagans against good Christians. Gladiator patterning itself on the Fall of the Roman Empire, and later too, fortunately, does not fall back onto this very horrid which is one saving grace of both of the gladiator films. But again, the impulse of that, or for that, comes from follow the Roman Empire. On the other hand, let me add that the entire narrative tradition of Romans on screen, or even of history on screen, is basically one big, mighty river, mighty stream. And that's a stream of sameness, largely with exceptions, of course. So let me put it this way, if you don't mind, let me quote a saying by Alfred Hitchcock, who said at one point, and he should know, the master of suspense. He said a movie is only as good as its villain. And we talked about this earlier, and you that Caracalla and Geta are not really good enough, not really good enough as as villains. So if you have a great villain, you can have a great story. And that worked really well in Spartacus, in Ben Hur in the earlier Gladiator, and follow me about the two Commodus films and so on. So there is a huge tradition in all of this, and it's very difficult, consciously or even unconsciously, if you like to deviate from this and that regard to both gladiator and Gladiator two are, just as I said, additional episodes in this long road that Rome has gone in the history of popular media and earlier, as I said, in novel so stage plays and similar kind of things. The cliches of the about the Romans are so indirect that it's, as I said, very, very difficult to go against these that reminds me of something completely different. So if I may be more depressed and ask for just a moment, let me mention the following. I remember, and I may be wrong in remembering this incorrectly. I remember when the first X Men movie came out many, many years ago, it was advertised as well. This is great, and the special effects hasn't happened. I never been seen before, so I went. I was very much underwhelmed by that film, too, and I never bothered to watch any of the secrets. But there is one moment that I still remember in which one of the hero characters, or soon to be hero characters, I think it was Wolverine. I may be wrong. The one paper you Jackman. He comes to a kind of school, and there's a school room with a Blackboard, and the Blackboard is has been erased, except for three words, they are still readable on the blank board. And presumably, and the classroom itself is empty too. So presumably this was the subject of the lesson that had gone on there before. And the three words are, I quote, The Roman Empire. So the Roman Empire is sort of the paradigm of an evil empire, be it Star Wars or transfixion or whatever else, or or in history, and not just an evil empire, but also a fascinating empire. You can't get Romans out of your system. And if you do spectacle, yeah, and cinema is primarily a visual medium, stating the painfully obvious, if you do spectacle, you can't really go worse, or do do worse than with recreating room or the Roman Empire and its decadence, so gladiatorial games, chariot races or orgies and on and on and on. So in that sense, the creation of the past is as much fictional as the creation of the future in science fiction. And Scott's Blade Runner, and also Alien two of his I think really great films are in character or in principle, not that much different from what we have here. So historical epics or future epics set in the future, heroes, villains, shows the story patterns don't really change, which is just as well, because they are tried and true. Dr G 54:14 And I think to a certain extent, there's a an audience expectation for stories to have particular arts, particularly in cinema, and particularly when it involves the Roman Empire, to start to to wrap up this conversation, because this has been so interesting, but I also can see that, you know, we've talked for a long time, actually, no, no, it's been. It's you, Martin Winkler 54:39 you can, you can throw me to the lines, or crucify me or visually like Dr G 54:46 look. We'll create a suitable spectacle, it's fair to say. But Hollywood does have a tendency to lean in to the spectacle. Obviously, that's part of part of its job, in a way. Yeah, but there is that potential to sort of cross a line into things that might start to feel a little bit too much. And I'm wondering if there were any moments that stood out for you watching gladiator two, where you're like, Oh, I think that might have gone a bit too far. Martin Winkler 55:15 To be frank. No, not anymore. That's because at my age, I've seen so much that virtually nothing surprises me anymore. In that regard, I do admit that during gladiator two, I had to laugh several times. But that's, that's, that's another thing. The his talking inaccuracies are to be expected. You can't help that. That's because of the fictionalization, if you like. Let me put it that way, of the past. That's something that you find in antiquity itself. Also consider we talked earlier I mentioned briefly the film Troy for the Trojan War. Consider that in antiquity of the chosen war, which to us, is basically mythology, even after the excavations of Troy, the discovery by Freeman and what have you, and others too, to Greeks and Romans and antiquity of the Trojan War was a historical fact. So when you retell this, as Virgil does, the fall of toy in the indeed other historical epics, Greek religions putting plays on tragedies on set among Trojan characters, The Trojan Women, by Euripides and many others, they take great liberties with the quote, unquote facts, as they probably understood this. A case in point is the story about Helen who, in one version, pretty much canonized by Homer in The Odyssey, I'm sorry, in the Iliad. And then perhaps also reinforced in The Odyssey is in Troy during the entire war in another version. And to read this, I'm sorry, Homer hints had this in the Odyssey briefly too. Helen is in Egypt. Hence the modern HD. Helen Egypt, in Egypt. What have you now in Euripides, two plays, the chosen women. Helen is now a captive of the Greeks because she's been in tour the entire time. In another play by Euripides, she wasn't there at all. And the entire chosen war was sort of over a few times phantom Helen, the image of Helen and what have you now. How can this be? How can one of the same author, the great, very learned author, he repeat this play so freely with what probably he also considered to be fact, the fact of the chosen war. So either she is Helen is entering or she's not. But he does it both ways. He has his cake and eats it too, in one play this one and the other play the other one. So that's perfectly okay. So history, historical facts are flexible. They can be reinterpreted, and usually are. This will probably remind you of a great book from maybe two decades, 25 or so years ago, Hayden. Why it's meta history, which deals with historic, modern historiography, not ancient historiography as literary artifacts. And historians also sift through the facts. It's not just an amalgamation of anything that comes in, sort of like a squirrel, as if a squirrel were collecting historical nuts and then presenting all of them. They sift and sword and put them into a coherent, explanatory kind of storyline, as Tacitus did, As Sallust, Thucydides, everybody really did, and the ancient historians also gave a moral slant to the effectual accounts. One of the greatest examples is probably also at least in English, is Gibbon with this gigantic history of the client for the Roman Empire, so and that that is a literary kind of work, allow me to mention maybe one more example, one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, German historian of ancient Rome, Theodore Mommsen. He wrote a gigantic book, history of Rome, for which he received a Nobel Prize in literature. So why would a historian receive a literary, poets, novelist, whatever kind of prize? But it makes sense to come back to the subject matter here I came across, not too long ago, across something that the late great French director Jacques Rivitte, who in the 60s, 50s and 60s, was associated with the French New Wave for cinema, the Nouvelle bar. He said, at one point in a conversation or interview, I forget, I quote this almost verbatim in English. He said, As soon as something is put on film, it becomes fiction. And I think that is exactly right. The lament by historians, oh, this is wrong. That is wrong. They should have done this. It wasn't like that. That's all true. It never was like that. In the best case scenario, it could have been pretty much like that, but certainly, we never know for sure. And of course, the filmmakers, the studios, the producers, the actors, the screenwriters. They're not classic scholars or classical historians, and they don't make their movies for classicists and people with PhD in Roman history and what have you. They're popular writers. And I don't mean this in a negative sense. Apart from it, Dr G 59:56 I'm not sure anyone should put a classicist or historian in. Charge of attempting time, because they'd be crippled by the details, I think, and I don't know if it would ever see the light of day, because of the frustrations with the whole process of trying to pull the production together to be accurate as possible. Dr Rad 1:00:13 Your point there, which is very well taken, leads me to my final question for you. As someone who also loves looking at history on a film. I've often found that the way that I can explain it best to my students is that there's a difference between accuracy and authenticity on the screen, and this is often something I think you find filmmakers and also the people that write about historical filmmakers talk about which is this idea that they're not necessarily trying to get every little detail right. They don't actually necessarily care about getting every little detail right, but they do want to have an accurate feel to the movie, or, as you've put it, staying true to the spirit of the period overall, looking at the film altogether, because we've talked about it in little pieces today. Do you think that Gladiator II does stay true to the spirit of the period? It Martin Winkler 1:01:05 stays true to the spirit of the historical period, third century, early third century. Ad, sort of given the fact that this was pretty much the beginning, or more than the beginning of the decline of the empire, I mean all the violence and decadence and whatever in that sense, yes, but again, it's not specific enough for you to make a point about about that. On the other hand, Scott stays too to the spirit of his own time and his own spirit and his own experience as a filmmaker, because glad the two obviously goes back to Gladiator, and that goes back to as you saw Spartacus problema and and what have you. He also stays true to himself. You pointed out earlier that he had his first start in making advertisements for television. And these are very, very sort of tiny mini films. And rapid editing is sort of a necessity, a cynical one, for that. So hence the rapid editing in later the special effects, the volume, the cranked up volume of the sound, and whatever else that is now familiar to moviegoers. You mentioned his film, Napoleon, I think that's a good example of playing fast and loose with history and still getting across a kind of, at least sort of fleeting, if you like, impression of what the past may have been like, although they are, think they are much better films said during the Napoleonic era, including films about Napoleon himself, I have said many bad things about Scott, particularly in the connection with related to so maybe as my last word, let me mention his first film, the feature film that which I think is still his best, and also my favorite of his, and that is the duelist with Harvey cartel and Keith Carradine. That's very, very powerful film, also a heroic story, not on this sort of overblown epic spectacle, three hour platform. It's because of the story by Joseph Conrad, which is a great source, and Scott rises to the occasion. It's a beautiful film, beautifully shot. It reveals a little bit of his television, TV ad, aesthetic, if you may not, come in a ring composition back to the subject of aesthetic that was brought up first, but it holds very well together. And I think that's perhaps the essence of Scott even at the very beginning. Many of his other films, and I can't claim to have watched all of them, many of his other films are sometimes too long, too overblown, alien and breed one I will gladly accept from that. But if anybody, if those of our listeners have not looked at the dualists, please do so. I think it's a very rewarding experience. It's now available in the beautifully restored blu ray edition, so I recommend it very, very early. Oh, that's good to know it Dr Rad 1:03:49 is. And I think that's a good point to finish up on, because I think the reason why we've been picking apart gladiator two today is because we all really liked the first one. It was such an interesting addition to the catalog of films about Rome. And even though, obviously there's a lot to say about the historical inaccuracy of that film, it really embodied what I think I love about history in general, which is that history is good to think with. It helps you to reflect on your own time and also on the time that it's about. And I think that that's what I was missing from gladiator two. I didn't have that same urge to reflect or to use this film to think about anything that I find particularly interesting. It did seem like just spectacle, and I know that Ridley Scott is capable of delivering so much more, and that's why I think I was disappointed at the end. Martin Winkler 1:04:39 Yes, I would sign off on that completely too. Maybe he has a much bigger and better, bigger and qualitative sense, better surprise in store for you with his upcoming films. Who knows? So let's not put paid to him yet. Absolutely, Dr G 1:04:53 I will always thank him for creating the first film that, that gladiator film. I mean. It sort of sets the tone for a way. A lot of scholars in our generation think about Rome in that period as a touchstone for how does that sort of shift if we look at the ancient evidence, but it's also, I think it's a great film. It's actually really powerful film, and it's one that I'm happy to re watch and obviously I revisited it in order before I saw gladiator two at sort of us, I was like, well, obviously I need to re watch Gladiator, you know, I've got to be prepared. Obviously, it's another moment where I was like, Oh, I have to watch this film again. And it's not a burden to do that with gladiator because the performances are so well executed, I think, and the world building feels really quite strong. So thank you so much for taking this time to sit down and chat with us. We're immensely privileged to have you here and to learn from your insights. Not Martin Winkler 1:05:54 at all, it's my pleasure entirely Thank you, and thank you for being such gracious host. And I hope I was not too disappointing with or my natural negativity. Dr Rad 1:06:04 We had the same sort of feeling. We enjoyed going to see it, but we had the same feeling, which was that the sequel was just trying to hit those same beats and yet just didn't execute it effectively enough for it to be anything more than really a shadow of the first film, which, as you say, is quite common for sequels. But I was kind of hoping, because of the gap between the first and the second, that Ridley Scott would maybe have a bit of license to break free Dr G 1:06:35 from and really craft a new story. Yeah, exactly, yeah. That didn't seem to be the case, sadly. Dr Rad 1:06:43 Well, listeners, if you enjoy learning about Rome on film, I definitely suggest that you go and consult one of the many excellent volumes that Professor Winkler has edited over the years. They are filled with very insightful articles from lots of academics, and I can definitely say that a lot of my work on history on film has been based on something from one of those volumes, and they're very readable, so please go and check them out. Thank you for listening to this special episode of the partial historians, you can find our sources sound credits and an automated transcript in our show notes. Our music is by Bettina Joy De Guzman. You too can support our show and help us to produce more engaging content about the ancient world by becoming a Patreon. In return, you receive exclusive early access to our special episodes, and you get to make suggestions for future episodes. Today, we would like to thank all of our wonderful Patreon and Ko fi supporters for helping us to cover the costs of making the show and taking it in new directions. However, if you have spent all your money at the Coliseum on larks tongues and wren's livers, please just tell someone about the show or give us a five star review Until next time we are yours in ancient Rome Unknown Speaker 1:08:09 You Transcribed by https://otter.ai